Yet another possible change in Ubuntu's core components: they're mulling over replacing GDM with LightDM. Why? Well: "Faster - the greeter doesn't require an entire GNOME session to run. More flexible - multiple greeters are supported through a well defined interface. This allows Ubuntu derivatives to use the same display manager (e.g. Kubuntu, Lubuntu etc.). Simpler codebase - similar feature set in ~5000 lines of code compared to 50000 in GDM. Supports more usecases - first class support for XDMCP and multihead."

Thinking outside the box...as in off your Linux box entirely. Many of the changes proposed for Ubuntu are poorly conceived and not very well executed. Unity, for example will take three or four (or five) releases before it's usable or as feature complete as Gnome 3 (though I'm no fan of the Gnome Shell either.) The same situation exists with Wayland, which is nowhere near prime time at the moment; from what I read on LightDM's home page it's exactly the same boat. All of these radical changes will no doubt bring regressions and frustration to Ubuntu's user base, which are comprised of fresh Linux converts and newbies. Given Ubuntu's arguably poor track record with regards to bug fixing, many of these regressions may persist across several generations of Ubuntu. What a great way to convince newcomers to Linux how "superior" and stable it is as an operating system. Meanwhile, more conservative Linux distros like Mepis, PCLinuxOS and the like, which offer great, rock solid Linux experiences for novices and experts alike will remain obscure because their innovations are eclipsed by the tech darling Ubuntu. I think it's great that Ubuntu is thinking of new and interesting directions in which to take Ubuntu, but a slow and steady approach that ensures things are done right is best. Not a fast and loose barrage of half-implemented changes that confuse and confound users.

" but a slow and steady approach that ensures things are done right is best. Not a fast and loose barrage of half-implemented changes that confuse and confound users.

You are assuming stable releases won't be stable. I think that's a big assumption. And, if stability is your main objective, just use debian proper or one of the other distros you mentioned. "

Given that Ubuntu is supposedly the Linux for the masses, one would think stability would be a top priority. After all, Linux is so much more stable than Windows could ever be, right? As for the changes breaking something, I think one need only look back at previous Ubuntu releases, particularly every release after 8.04, to see just why people don't like it when Ubuntu does drastic changes. They seem to do changes for the sake of changing things, not always because it's a better or approach and they never test anything very well besides. Sorry, but six months between releases is not enough time to do it properly, and Ubuntu's track record proves it. The one change they've proposed that I think *must* be implemented is to separate out the software repositories so that people don't have to upgrade their os to get the latest Firefox via software center. Imho, that one should take top priority, as it will help the masses more than any visual or display manager change. Follow it up, naturally, with replacing X as the core display technology. Then, and only then, worry about trivial things like the login display manager or visual theming. What good is a theme when the rest of your os is half-baked?

...Many of the changes proposed for Ubuntu are poorly conceived and not very well executed....

How can proposed changes not be well executed? They are "proposed".

If you look at Android, it's linux without X. OSX is BSD Unix, without X. This is the same direction Ubuntu is taking. Why did others dump X, because they don't need it for their audience. I'm not against X. I want X to stay on my box. But, I want it on Ubuntu the same way it is on my MBP, not required for basic window and mouse functionality.

I agree 100% with you, but let me add one more thing, I actually like ubuntu very very much because it got me to the linux world 5 years ago, to the point I now work as a Linux junior IT consultant.

Many times, speaking about Ubuntu, people talk about these regressions. By talking further into the problems they have run up against I often find out that their regression is almost every time related to non-LTS releases.

In my opinion, and I believe general critics support this, is that LTS releases are stable and polished as one expects it to be.
Then IF your a sucker for new features like myself and install the new ubuntu release every six months then it's just normal that you'll also get the other side of the coin which is basically occasional fallbacks in HW support, or bugged features or speed....

You have choice as a ubuntu user, you can choose stability over feature-richness or the other way around. And if you really not ok with ubuntu, then there's plenty of choice outside of it too.

I agree, Debian is the distro to go for if stability is what your after. For me, it can't happen soon enough for Ubuntu to "innovate" themselves into oblivion. It is the most bug ridden, crash happy Linux distro I have ever come across. At times even updates break the entire system to the point of unusable, why there is so many other distro's using it as a base for their own I will never understand. I mean it's not as if Debian can't be customized and made into a great desktop OS, installing Ultamatix does most of this work for you which results in a Debian install that far surpasses Ubuntu and is most importantly stable.

Its nice to see that the Linux distributions are not stuck in a rut and are actually willing to try something new.

Yes we all remember how pulseadio on Ubuntu was not a shining example of how to implement something at first, but standing still is a great way to become obsolete.

Never crashing or being more stable than Windows just does not cut it any more.

I guess what makes Ubuntu more palatable to new users is that it simple to install and set-up, installing graphic card drivers and installing media codecs is not difficult. And although it almost pains me to say this, I have found it quite easy to teach people how to use tools like the "Software Centre".

The above coupled with installing Wine 1.2.1 seems to make it an acceptable distribution for a lot of people who just use it to do simple tasks and play the odd game.